The part that really makes no sense to me is: If you’re going to host a site supporting “free speech”, presumably someone in management has hosted things on the internet before - which means you know that there will be legal challenges since you are pushing boundaries here.
Any CTO/COO worth their salt in this situation should say, from the beginning: “Hey, so, because we’re going to fight for free speech, there’s a good chance we will butt up against Acceptable Use Policies or other corporations that have differing views about this. So, from the beginning, let’s design to be portable - don’t rely on specific cloud features, and make sure we have a clear DR plan so that we can come up again on everything from VM’s to container services. Yes, this will be more expensive and less efficient, but it’s also necessary if we are at risk of legal issues”.
This clearly didn’t happen.
Then, Gab, their closest competitor in terms of legal liability and mission manages to get turfed, more than once, from their platforms. At that point, even if your COO/CTO hadn’t made the statement above, surely at this point they say “Ok, What happened to Gab could happen to us. We need to not let that take us offline. Let’s restrict our use of SaaS or proprietary systems so we aren’t fucked if we lose vendors like Gab did”.
But again, clearly, this didn’t happen.
As I’ve said, it’s Parler’s own fault they are offline in the first place, but it’s also Parler’s _lack of technical management expertise" that has resulted in them staying offline, not the boycott per se. Peter Kolmisoppi is completely correct here.
